FARE CEO announced his resignation

[LinksEtc]

"FARE Credits CEO Lehr's Tenure as Remarkable Success and Launches Search for New CEO"

http://www.foodallergy.org/press-room/2014/080414

MCLEAN, VA (AUGUST 4, 2014) – Food Allergy Research & Education (FARE) CEO John Lehr today announced his resignation more than two years after leading the successful merger of the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) and the Food Allergy Initiative (FAI) to form FARE.

[TT]

Oh, joy. James Baker is interim CEO. Michigan Food Allergy Research Center with Greenhawt, who takes research money from the peanut industry magically cranking out 'data' that food bans don't work--whatever he means (read: manipulates) to mean work.

I pray that guy has a Google Alert for his name bringing him here. I can't wait to hear his gross overgeneralization of Sicherer's paper on small smudges of peanut butter for 30 seconds in a lab means that there is zero risk to anyone in an environment with unchecked peanut residue and toddlers. We can have a satisfying conversation about his statements on Sicherer's studies in exacting detail after I post a picture I took of a sign in the Sinai Jaffe waiting room asking people not to eat for patient safety.

We can't simultaneously be the sponsored cash cow of Mylan while going full tilt towards treatments options and cure. Hope Dr. Li patented the crap out of FAHF.

[LinksEtc]

I feel like I might get beat up a bit for saying this & I'm really not wanting that right now but ...

My opinion is that maybe it crosses a line to say that Dr. Baker or Dr. Greenhawt or their work has been influenced by donations from industry.  That's a big accusation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's no doubt that funding of studies & patient groups is a serious issue (and you know that I am FA transparency mom) ... ex


Docs helping patients to surf the internet

"How Manufacturer-Funded Research Compromises Patient Care"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2014/07/24/how-manufacturer-funded-research-compromises-patient-care/?utm_source=followingimmediate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20140724

Regardless of the etiology, research bias and skewed results are real when medical companies fund studies on their products.

Tweeted by @CSPI

"Coca-Cola's Assault on Tap Water"
http://civileats.com/2013/11/13/coca-colas-assault-on-tap-water/

Herein lies the inherent problem that accompanies "working with" Big Food; most health advocates' suggested changes and policies pose a threat to its profits.

"Scientists Say F.D.A. Ignored Radiation Warnings"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/health/policy/29fda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

For patients, navigating the debate can be difficult because doctors, patient advocacy groups and manufacturers often endorse positions that are in their economic self-interest. Radiologists, who often own and use CT machines, for instance, often endorse their use; while gastroenterologists, who often own and use camera scopes, often favor their own methods. Patient groups often get financing from drug and device makers, or physician-specialty groups.

I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated

So often, quality of info and/or advocacy seems tied to $ and/or politics.

----------------------------


"Misquoted And Misunderstood: Peanut Bans In Schools And A False Sense Of Security"
http://blog.onespotallergy.com/2014/01/misquoted-and-misunderstood-peanut-bans-in-schools-and-a-false-sense-of-security/

I was very interested to learn that in 1999, Ms. Munoz Furlong received a $14,000.00 grant from The Peanut Foundation, which is the research arm of the American Peanut Council.

Here are the grant particulars:

The decision makers and parents should also be educated that bans do not work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have concerns about industry influence on FA advocacy groups & some studies, but if 2 docs (and/or their work) are going to be specifically called out, I think we would have to clearly say what are the concerning studies (links), provide proof that they were funded by big food, and proof that the specific results were manipulated .... otherwise, I think FAS is flirting with libel.  Plus, I feel taking the criticism to that level, or said in that way, isolates FAS from the larger FA community that then tunes out hearing our legitimate criticisms and concerns.





Really

[LinksEtc]

Another example ...

Docs helping patients to surf the internet

sesame seeds labeling: US specific (laws, loopholes)

www.regulations.gov

Request of Comments and Information on Initiating a Risk Assessment for Establishing Food Allergen Thresholds

FDA-2012-N-0711-0053

FARRP would assert that the FDA does not have compelling scientific data on the prevalence, severity and potency of other foods to consider any additions to the existing FALCPA list. In fact, if the three factors of prevalence, severity and potency are examined together, several of the existing foods may not belong on the list. Soybean allergy appears to be less prevalent than any of the others on the FALCPA list, soybean is not an especially potent allergenic food, and soybean has caused very few severe reactions. Much the same could be said for wheat allergy (not for celiac disease which does have higher prevalence). Crustacean shellfish allergy is very prevalent but the potency and severity of crustacean shellfish appear to be rather low. FARRP would encourage FDA to develop an algorithm based upon prevalence, severity and potency to determine which foods belong on the priority allergens list. The decisions should be based upon science. FARRP would note that ILSI-Europe is working on the development of an algorithm for possible use in the EU and FDA should monitor this ongoing activity. FARRP would further note that the U.S. does not really have good data on prevalence. This is also true on a worldwide basis (Rona et al., 2007), although the EU has funded the EuroPrevall project that should, when published, fill that gap for the EU. U.S. estimates are based mostly on telephone surveys (Sicherer et al., 1999; Sicherer et al., 2004; Sicherer et al., 2010). Telephone surveys are not supported by clinical confirmations. Thus, FARRP would encourage FDA to work with other federal agencies to obtain better estimates of the prevalence of various specific food allergies in the U.S. based upon unselected populations and clinical confirmations.

---------------------------

http://www.foodallergy.org/about/leadership/advisors

Steve Taylor, PhD
Professor, Department of Food Science and Technology
Director, Food Allergy Research and Resource Program
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE

FDA-2012-N-0711-0062 (GM)

In addition to our direct comments, we fully endorse comments submitted by the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program.

How nice it would be if, for once, companies didn't fight some additional regulations.  It would be so nice if they said - you know, we support mandatory sesame labeling because we care about our customers and we are committed to their safety.  No company likes complicated or excessive regulations, but requiring the labeling of sesame makes sense.  Instead of fighting us, why not be true partners with us FA consumers?

I would like to know more about (FARE - FARRP - Food Industry - FDA) relationships & how they influence sesame allergy labeling (that is, if those relationships influence sesame labeling).  Again, I'm not accusing ... just expressing my wish to better understand the interactions of these groups.



Are experts ever discouraged from examining the current accuracy of statements like "the USA 8 most common allergens cause 90% of reactions"?
Prevalence Of Food Allergy To Uncommon Foods Based On Oral Food Challenges

I've said it before ... "The Top 8" is sounding more & more like "the Earth is flat".

[Macabre]

Links, I'm behind you on that.

[TT]

Researchers must legally and ethically disclose their biases. This is because the and their work are prone to biases. They must make statements that they believe they are free of bias if they believe so. My husband is no exception as another researcher. The difference is most MDs are not necessarily trained to perform research as many PhDs would be. Neither does performing research and publishing mean much unless those publications are in respected journals open to peer review. The work must be predicated on fundamentally good science as well.

I disagree when Greenhawt says his funding from the peanut industry has no bias effect on his opinions, which I haven't seen much of in the way of primary research, and have heard from his own mouth distorted, gross over generalizations on work that is not his presented to 'the community' without any citations or detail.

That's bad science, period. I have a genuine critique to his work that is completely in line with calling bias into question. He is not immune to it more or less than any other researcher.

All the allergy/immunology researchers, as any researcher, must disclose their potential conflicts of interest and potential biases. It does not render them immune to other critiques of bias.

I do not believe him when he by mandate discloses his conflicts of interest stating that in no way does his work or statements have bias due to it.

I believe Dr. Sampson and Dr. Li and many others.

Further, ANY of the doctors sans the appropriate professional legal qualifications should preface any statement made about civil rights in education or disability with "I am not a lawyer.."

As a member I do not want Baker or any from the Michigan Food Allergy Research Center as CEO of FARE. As a member of FARE I do not like the level of influence Mylan has had through financial support.

For example, below are the titles of some NIH publications. It is by far not an exhaustive list.

Does source of funding and conflict of interest influence the outcome and quality of spinal research?

An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia.

Conclusions: While the retrospective design of the study limits the strength of the findings, the data suggest that industry bias may occur in randomized controlled trials in schizophrenia. There appears to be several sources by which bias may enter clinical research, including trial design, control of data analysis and multiplicity/redundancy of trials.

The anathema to research is bias. Researchers *must* disclose funding, potential conflicts of interest, and if they believe themselves free of bias to attest to it. They are required to do so in order for the rest of us to be informed to consider whether or not the work is as free of bias as the researcher claims.

In this case, due to poor science as a basic problem, I do not believe the researcher because he has made statements of over generalization and I have not seen publications supporting anything that he has said in the way of primary research supporting by peers, or work of primary research that can withstand full peer review including detailed critique of his methods, his funding, his conclusions, his exclusions, his population.

I look forward to being proven inaccurate in a concrete fashion. Until then I have grossly incorrect statements made of another researcher's work and an unconvincing statement that bias does not exist in any of his work or opinions.

The researcher's duty is to disclose bias and prove it to review/critique that it is not inherent or exist in work or words. Questioning bias is par for the course, it is an established part of the process.

[TT]

Funding bias

The phrases funding bias, sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, or funding publication bias refer to an observed tendency of the conclusion of a scientific research study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias is an instance of experimenter's bias.

[TT]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22940/

Despite their benefits, relationships with industry create conflicts of interest that can undermine the primary goals of medical research. Where there are conflicts, legitimate and serious concerns can be raised about the openness of research and potential bias in the design, conduct, and reporting of research (see, e.g., Gross [2007]). Whether or not the conflicts actually lead to unwarranted secrecy or biased results in particular cases, they have the potential to threaten the reputation of the research enterprise if they are not avoided or identified and managed responsibly.

Peer review is a key step used to detect and reduce bias in publications and improve the quality of research reporting. Effective review depends on independent reviewers who are not biased by their own financial relationships with industry.

Relationships between industry and research institutions and researchers are common and are often mutually beneficial. They also serve society by generating valuable preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic products. At the same time, these individual and institutional relationships have risks that could jeopardize the integrity of scientific research and conflict with the ethical conditions for the conduct of research with humans. Analyses indicate that they are associated with decreased openness in sharing data and findings, and cases in which negative findings are not published in a timely fashion or at all raise concerns. Some studies also suggest that meta-analyses sponsored by a single company tend to present conclusions favorable to industry sponsors even when the actual findings of the analyses are not favorable. Moreover, when investigators themselves have a financial stake in the outcomes of their research, it creates conflicts of interest, which may lead to bias and the erosion of confidence in the research enterprise.

Chapter 2 discussed why conflicts of interest matter even if they do not actually lead to undue influence or bias in a particular case. Correlations or associations in studies such as those reported here are enough to support concerns over potential conflicts of interest.

[Macabre]

I get that, but I'm just not so sure that guilt by professional association is the conclusion to make.

You may be right. The entire practice may be skewed toward not taking risks as seriously as we hope.

I'll say that Burks was not worried about anaphylaxis from exposure other than ingestion. But when we described my DS' reaction that could only have come from accidental ingestion after touching a door, he concluded that DS must have picked up peanut protein from a surface and accidentally ingested it.

He was a great doctor for DS. (And I have no idea how then Duke and now UNC funded his research).  We went because he was a guru who was doing desens studies 

[TT & DH]

"but if 2 docs (and/or their work) are going to be specifically called out, I think we would have to clearly say what are the concerning studies (links), provide proof that they were funded by big food"

This. But Greenhawt, not Baker, and based on Greenhawt making statements on his data but not providing citations to support it or open it to review, OR making claims about another paper without citing it or providing sufficient, necessary context to support its conclusions.

Baker as CEO for an organization as large as FARE doesn't make a good sense to me because the position needs more substantive business experience, IMO. As a paid current member I would like to see someone with more of a business background for this specific position. I would be much happier to see Dr. Baker as a medical advising role, and also to shore up the standards for citation of any data coming from his institution.

We (we meaning DH & I) need to see Greenhawt's data from his meta-analyses which he mentions but does not readily and easily share. It needs opening to peer review including community review. Inherently it would disclose any potential conflicts of interest. FYI, it is playing by the rules of academic research to answer accusations of bias, whether funding or any other bias type and to demand to see the data. It's also not any reader's responsibility to 'prove' funding because it is the researcher's responsibility to disclose. That's on the researcher end. Greenhawt discloses his funding as required. I've no problem with his disclosures nor his adherence to procedure announcing that none of what he says constitutes medical advice.

*He* properly disclosed his funding from the peanut industry then talked about bans not working. *He* claimed that he has no funding bias in that conclusion without any presentation of data to support that specific opinion other than the statement that kids still have reactions at school. I'd like to see the paper or study he mentioned in relation to that statement that bans don't work and his funding. This is *normal* in academia. He is a doctor, this is true. He is also a university academic. These rules he is following as required.

When making a scientific statement, absent a discussion of the methodology/sample, the data, and limitations of the study then it is irresponsible to make any scientific findings or proof. Scrutinizing for bias is not libel, and I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Source?

At the beginning of making statements a medical researcher will state that any opinions presented are not medical advice. So if a statement is not medical advice and it is not a valid scientific statement, what is it other than personal opinion?

I've heard his disclosures, his references to specific data. I want him to present publicly or make readily available his papers any listening to his statements can easily find to review for bias, methods, and limitations. I don't even care if it's published in a journal I just want to read what he references as solid conclusion.

I have no opinion of Greenhawt as a practicing doctor or allergist other than he seems like a fantastic one. As a *researcher* (different rules) I want him to play more by the rules. Any researcher that refuses review or can't handle accusations of bias shouldn't be a researcher. I'm inclined to suspect his meta-analyses are much weaker and prone to bias than his hard medical research but I have no way of knowing until it's put out there readily and easily accessible to contextualize his broad statements of finding. Waiting eagerly for it from HIM.

Whether it can be written by me here is separate than does the system for research standards exist for resolving bias.

[CMdeux]

I have to agree-- I have shared the concerns over the years that come with advocacy/activist agencies sharing OPINIONS, but without sharing data-- or, even worse, without disclosing potential conflicts of interest.

Again-- it's not good science.  It makes the opinions inherently about as valuable as-- well, as anecdote.  Which, to be clear, is not as unbiased as DATA itself, which generally "says" nothing much in particular without the liberal application of human judgment regarding its meaning.

It's that latter half of things where bias matters-- and it always matters.  ALWAYS.

[LinksEtc]

you all always make me think ...but my mind is not in the mood of thinking hard ... will come back to.

[Macabre]

But how again does this actually relate to Baker?  Am I missing something?

[LinksEtc]

"National Peanut Board Launches Food Allergy Education Advisory Council"

http://nationalpeanutboard.org/news-releases/national-peanut-board-launches-food-allergy-education-advisory-council/

The Council, comprised of doctors, food allergy authorities, school and professional foodservice leaders and others with expertise in the issue, will serve as a resource to schools, restaurants, and manufacturers who are trying to help consumers who might have a peanut allergy.  The Council will provide its expert guidance as NPB works to build better understanding and correct misinformation about effective allergy management practices.

---------------------------------


ok ... I totally support being extremely transparent as far as the details of studies, conflicts of interest, & biases ... for all FA research/policy positions.  That is something I support.

The tone of the post doesn't sit right with me ... like "that guy" ... it just doesn't sound respectful ... we as a group can be critical yet still be civil.  Note - I am not telling anybody how to post ... it's just that if we want what we say to be seriously considered by the larger FA community, how we say things matters ... just my opinion.

and before saying "manipulates" or "gross overgeneralization", don't we have to see the details ... I mean, we can have a suspicion, but to say for sure, do we have enough facts?

CM & TT/DH have much more scientific experience than me (I did get an A+ in college chemistry if that counts    ) ... you guys know I'm just a stay-at-home mom currently ... no formal research background unless you count my underappreciated google skills.  I know that you guys know more than me about what is acceptable in the research community.

I'm also not a lawyer so what counts as libel, I couldn't say for sure ... 1st thing that pops up on google for me

a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

I think that this thread has the potential to damage reputation, but is what has been said "false"?
This is not for me to judge.

I am also not in a leadership position at FAS ... I'm just a regular member ... so this is something that I do not have to decide for the group.

I had a slight concern, I said it, that's all.

-------------

Totally separate from all this stuff, I'm happy to see you posting again TT & so cool that your dh joined you.  I really do learn a lot from you TT & there are times when your posting style is just what I need.

I hope that you don't take any of this personally.   

[CMdeux]

Well, individual opinion is-- in my mind-- exactly that.  The TOS here covers that pretty thoroughly, I think.    As noted (by TT DH, I'm guessing  ) this is precisely what scientists DO during peer review, and it's definitely not a pleasant part of the scientific process-- but it IS an essential one.  Anything less means that it's not rigorous enough to warrant the name.  If one, as a scientist, puts something out there-- one must EXPECT to be challenged about it-- and that includes on the basis of bias and even fraud w/r/t one's data.  The data for work that I did nearly 35 years ago is still accessible in its original, raw form.  That is as it must be.  So that it can-- now, or at any time in the future-- be examined for evidence of-- well, pretty much anything.  Cows from Mars?  Bias?  Fraud?  Yup.  All of it.  THAT is real "transparency."





Where many clinical researchers get themselves into big trouble on this score is in thinking that they are exempt from this process so well known to PhD's, apparently simply because of having a degree that reads MD-PhD instead.  Or maybe just MD.  The thing is, though-- treating patients might work differently than "science" but doing SCIENCE with human subjects certainly does NOT.


My apologies-- this is a lengthy post.


Honestly-- if 'gross misrepresentation' gets either person THAT upset?  Wow-- I have to think that they have never faced a hostile reviewer or a nasty NIH section member in grant triage, then.  Because that is a fairly civil way of stating things, given what scientists are like, and if both of them are accustomed to publishing then they're used to this.  And if they aren't, well, then point made already, really-- that's not how science works.  I can't just think that something is true, collect data that SUPPORTS my ideas while not allowing anyone else to look at it, and hold a press conference to announce my awesome new idea as FACT as though it were backed by hundreds of independent research studies.  No way.  And yet clinical researchers quite often do this sort of thing.  It's MADDENING.

Why?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/4/#more-4

SBM sums it up nicely with a quote from Bausell's impressive book re: scientific exploration of CAM, which is then explained in terms that apply quite nicely to the point that TT and her DH have been making at some length:
[spoiler]

Bausell points out that

"...just because someone with a PhD or an MD performs a clinical trial doesn't mean that the trial possesses any credibility whatsoever. In fact, the vast majority of these efforts are worse than worthless because they produce misleading results."

The book includes valuable lessons on how to tell credible research from the other kind. Even the most experienced researchers will find food for thought here, and for the layman it will be a revelation.

Research is full of pitfalls. Negative studies tend not to get published (the file drawer effect). Research done by believers and pharmaceutical companies tends to be more positive than research done by others. Studies from non-English speaking countries are notoriously unreliable for various reasons – 98% of the acupuncture studies from Asia are positive, compared to 30% from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The researcher may delegate the actual research to others, who may make undetected mistakes or deliberately skew results to please their boss. Double blind studies may not be truly blind: subjects may have been able to guess which group they were in. Subjects who are not responding may drop out. People who believe in homeopathy are more likely to volunteer for homeopathy studies. Researchers may put a positive spin on their findings or reach conclusions that are not justified by the data. Even if the research is impeccable, we arbitrarily use p=.05 as the measure of statistical significance, and this means there is a 5% probability that the results will appear falsely positive just by chance. There are more pitfalls, and Bausell covers them all.

When you come right down to it, no experiment is beyond criticism, and most published research is wrong. So how can we decide which studies are credible? We now have published guidelines such as the 22 item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials, but Bausell offers some simpler criteria that can rule out the worst offenders:

[/spoiler]
For some REALLY great reading about the dynamic tension which necessarily exists between the modes of "patient care" (which is inherently idiosyncratic and anecdotal) and "research" (which must not be, if it is to merit the term) there is this, the opening post of SBM, which has one of the most amazing explanations of the fundamental problem that I've ever seen in print.  So good, in fact, that even six years after seeing it for the first time, I went back to hunt for it now. 

too often the nature of science itself is misunderstood or misrepresented to the public. Science is not an arcane and privileged discipline. By its very nature it is meant to be transparent and public. Science is nothing more than a systematic and careful use of evidence and logic to evaluate factual claims. And good science possesses certain virtues that are not unique to science but generic to all intellectual endeavors: fairly accounting for all available evidence, using valid and internally consistent logic, using unambiguous concepts and language, proper use of statistics, being quantitatively precise and accurate, and above all being honest.

And yet there are numerous and powerful influences in society that strongly appose the scientific basis of medicine. Driven by some combination of ideology or the desire for profit they wish to eliminate standards of science in health care, or (often under the guise of "health care freedom") create a double standard in which unscientific methods and products can thrive unchecked. Others simply lack the training or knowledge to achieve minimal standards of quality for scientific medicine. And even the best traditions of scientific medicine can benefit from more critical analysis.

Within the practice of medicine there is already a recognition of the need to raise the standards of evidence and the availability of the best evidence to the practitioner and the consumer – formalized in the movement known as evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has its limitations. Most relevant to this blog is the focus on clinical trial results to the exclusion of scientific plausibility. The focus on trial results (which, in the EBM lexicon, is what is meant by "evidence") has its utility, but fails to properly deal with medical modalities that lie outside the scientific paradigm, or for which the scientific plausibility ranges from very little to nonexistent.

All of science describes the same reality, and therefore it must (if it is functioning properly) all be mutually compatible. Collectively, science builds one cumulative model of the natural world. This means we can make rational judgments about what is likely to be true based upon what is already well established. This does not necessarily equate to rejecting new ideas out-of-hand, but rather to adjusting the threshold of evidence required to establish a new claim based upon the prior scientific plausibility of the new claim. Failure to do so leads to conclusions and recommendations that are not reliable, and therefore medical practices that are not reliably safe and effective.

YES.  Doctors are not very well trained as scientists.  This is a HUGE problem.  Some of them are naturally quite good at the scientific method, and understand it well.  Others do not, though some of them are very fine clinicians indeed.  Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to stop some members of that latter group from dabbling in research.   


I may disagree with the appointment for a variety of reasons-- then again, I didn't always love everything that FAAN did, either, with Anne and Terry at the helm.  But I still thought that they did a lot more good than bad.    I have no strong opinion either way regarding Dr. Baker at this point in time, given that he's not been on my radar in any way.   

I've posted some fairly critical things over the years re: Dr. Taylor's interactions with me [spoiler](via FAAN, when I challenged them on the blanket safety statement re: hot-processed pn oil being "Free of" peanut protein-- I think that the exact statement credited to Dr. Taylor at the time was that such oils had a "ZERO" concentration... my query was initially to make sure that FAAN wasn't misquoting Dr. Taylor, because I knew that the statement HAD to be false-- it was just a matter of translation, I thought, or bad paraphrasing).  It turned out that the statement WAS Dr. Taylor's and he took offense that I wanted to know what the actual value was-- or if it was below the LOD.  I still don't entirely trust him because he came across in that exchange as INCREDIBLY arrogant and not nearly as bright as he thinks that he is.  What he was stating was not scientifically valid, and his response to a gentle inquiry was defensiveness and retaliatory hostility that I dared to QUESTION him regarding unpublished data-- along with a dodge of the question that I had asked very clearly.  So I politely insisted that he answer it-- which he did (eventually) do, but he SHOULD have done it to begin with, if he were as good a scientist as he wants to be.  It has tainted my entire perspective re: FARRP, I'm sorry to say.  I don't bring that up much, because it's my own quirky background and-- well, my own kind of intuition based on what I know of decades of interaction with people like him in a professional sense.  He didn't LIKE what I had to say, because I was a nobody in his world, and yet I'd brought something up that he had clearly NOT really thought about (but it was pretty obvious to me and to other chemists) and it made him feel a bit insecure-- for reasons that are still not clear to me, so he immediately tried to discredit me or make me seem like an internet mom on too much caffeine rather than a fellow scientist (which, to be clear-- at the time, I most certainly WAS).   He's operating in a chemical and analytical realm that I'm not convinced he grasps fully, based upon that interaction.  He is clearly NOT a chemist, but a food scientist.  It worries me when I see him make certain statements, because I wonder how much confidence can legitimately be placed in those statements, YK?  Unfortunately, he is prominent enough in ONE domain that in neighboring domains where he lacks such competence, he may also be given more credence than is really wise.  Publicly.    It's a bit like taking Selena Gomez seriously on mid-East policy, to point out an extreme example.  I've known a LOT of PhD's that thought that the fact that they have one makes them automatically a better expert at EVERYTHING than someone without one-- and that is a problem when that person is relatively prominent in a narrow niche area, because tangentially related (and just as esoteric) domains are often interpreted (wrongly) as also being an area of this person's expertise.  [/spoiler] 

None of that is libelous.  It's all true or based on my genuine beliefs which seem quite reasonable to me.  It is also not a particularly flattering portrait of Dr. Taylor, to be sure.  Add in a few dollops of money from sources that have a vested interest in some statements or conclusions over others, and it's a REAL mess for me as a person reliant upon truthful and thorough statements from those who speak on our behalf. 

I also think that Links' point regarding civil language is well-made, however.    I may use "that guy" when I can't recall a name (which seems ever more common as I approach 50, I must say), but I don't deprive people of honorifics or names/affiliations on purpose.   Frankly-- if I disagree with someone's chops as a scientist, there are better ways to hit below the belt.    Just sayin.  There IS nothing worse, in my mind, than being portrayed as a complete slacker/poser in the scientific method, and citing chapter and verse.

Also-- add me to those that don't like the super-cozy relationships with either Mylan or with the peanut board (or dairy farmers, or anyone else) that are not adequately disclosed to patients, parents, physicians or members.